On November 18, 2015, pretrial detainees at the Santa Clara County Jail filed this class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of Northern California. The plaintiffs had been imprisoned in solitary confinement from November 2014 to November 2015 without knowing why they had been placed there or opportunities to appeal the decision. While in solitary, the prison denied the plaintiffs access to adequate medical care. The plaintiffs sued Santa Clara County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. They alleged class-wide violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Represented by the Prison Law Office and several private attorneys, they asked the court for a declaration that Santa Clara County violated their constitutional rights. In addition, the plaintiffs sought an order to enjoin Santa Clara County from holding people in solitary confinement for prolonged periods and from using unnecessary and excessive force, and to require that the County provide constitutionally adequate healthcare and meaningful opportunities to challenge solitary confinement decisions.
The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on January 20, 2016, adding an excessive use of force claim. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins for settlement discussions on April 28, 2016.
The plaintiffs moved for class certification, and Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas granted the motion on September 20, certifying a class of "All people who are now, or in the future will be, incarcerated in the Santa Clara County jails." The court also certified a subclass of "All people who are now, or in the future will be, incarcerated in the Santa Clara County jails and who have a psychiatric and/or intellectual disability, as defined under the Americans with Disabilities Act . . . and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act."
On January 17, 2017, the parties agreed to vacate the trial date and stay motions practice so they could pursue settlement. In April, the parties updated the court with the status of a possible consent decree. The court then scheduled to visit the facilities the following June. However, by November 6, 2017, the case was reassigned to Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman. The parties continued to meet over settlement conferences in front of Judge Cousins.
On October 23, 2018, the parties reached a proposed settlement, filed for a consent decree with the court, and proposed a plan to deliver notice to the class. On November 27, 2018, the magistrate judge approved the proposal and set a date for a final approval hearing. Nearly a dozen members of the class wrote expressing concerns and objecting to the class action settlement. Despite these letters, the court granted final approval of the consent decree on March 20, 2019. 2019 WL 1281981.
The defendant agreed to collaborate with the plaintiffs' counsel in drafting the policies to fulfill their obligations under the remedial plan. Thirty days prior to implementing new policies, the defendant would submit these plans to the plaintiffs' counsel for review. The jail agreed to cease using unlawful segregation and force, as well as ensure compliance with the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. The remedial plan mandated that the parties agree on neutral experts to monitor compliance. The experts would complete comprehensive reviews of the county's progress and would have access to all parts of the jail. Additionally, the plaintiff's counsel would have the ability to monitor compliance and access to the jails to inspect at least twice per year. In the event of a dispute, the parties agreed to first engage in informal resolution with a mediator. The court retained jurisdiction in the event that mediation failed. Finally, the County agreed to pay the plaintiff's counsel $1.6 million for merits fees and expenses, and $200,000 per year for monitoring fees and expenses. The consent decree will remain in effect until the County is found in substantial compliance with the Remedial Plan for one year.
Pursuant to the decree, the court ordered the clerk to close the case. The court noted that the court is closing the case simply as a “housekeeping matter”; as of this writing, the court retained continuing jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the decree.
Kat Brausch - 01/30/2016
Virginia Weeks - 03/24/2018
Keagan Potts - 08/04/2020
compress summary
